Mediaboss Marketing

Though the Second Amendment is most closely associated with guns, several legal decisions over the last few years have recognized the amendment doesnt only pertain to firearms.

Now, a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Diego argues the Second Amendment should also protect the right of Californians to own and carry automatically opening knives more commonly known as switchblades.

This story is for subscribers

We offer subscribers exclusive access to our best journalism.Thank you for your support.

California is one of the last states to still outlaw them, with the ban dating back some 65 years, when they were viewed thanks in large part to popular culture as particularly dangerous and the weapon of choice for menacing street gangs.

The recently filed lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization claims the states enforcement of switchblade laws denies (California residents) ... their fundamental, individual right to keep and bear these common, constitutionally protected arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

The suit is part of two separate but related trends. One is a years-long effort to expand Second Amendment rights to weapons that are not firearms, such as nunchucks, stun guns and batons. The other is a more recent effort since the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in June in a New York concealed-carry gun case to liberalize weapons laws.

Doug Ritter, the founder, chairman and CEO of Knife Rights, said it was certainly no coincidence that his group and the other plaintiffs brought this legal challenge after the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which he said set the table for such actions.

Now we have a very clear decision from the Supreme Court regarding possessing and carrying of arms for self-defense, Ritter said. There are clear limits on what is allowed, and what is not allowed, to be prohibited.

Most bans on switchblades, both at the federal and state levels, were put in place in the 1950s. That includes Californias ban, which was adopted in 1957. The state defines switchblades as knives with blades 2 inches or longer that open automatically by the flick of a button, flip of the wrist, pressure on the handle or by gravity.

Why did lawmakers enact the bans? And why did they consider switchblades so dangerous?

Movies in the 50s always made the bad guy have a switchblade, so switchblades became synonymous with bad guys, said Paul Clark, a New Jersey attorney and professor of philosophy and legal theory at Hudson County Community College in Jersey City. Attitudes about switchblades were more formed by Hollywood depictions than real life.

Clark has authored several articles on what he describes as obscure areas of the law, including bans on bayonets and switchblades. In the switchblade article, published in the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal, he endeavored to determine whether there was a correlation between crime rates and bans.

There is no evidence whatsoever that banning switchblades reduces crime, Clark said, adding that there was very little empirical research in the 1950s and 60s that went into banning them.

When Clark studied three states that legalized switchblades after previously banning them, his preliminary results showed an overall decrease in the percentage of crimes committed with knives.

He wrote that there are two possible explanations, including that there may be no relationship between legalization of switchblades and their use in crimes. The second theory he posed is that if knives are more prevalent, would-be criminals turn instead to guns so as to be more heavily armed than someone who might be legally carrying a knife.

What evidence did exist as to the unique dangers of switchblades at the time bans were imposed appears to have been anecdotal. But Clark argues outlawing the knives was an idea primarily rooted in entertainment citing movies like 12 Angry Men and Rebel Without a Cause, and the Broadway play-turned-film West Side Story that portrayed them as the weapons of choice for discontented youth and street gangs.

Ritter agreed that popular culture is largely to blame for the switchblades bad reputation, saying many people have adverse opinions about switchblades as the result of movies.

There were other factors. Blade magazine, which bills itself as The Worlds #1 Knife Publication, points out that in November 1950, the then-popular Womans Home Companion magazine published an article titled The Toy that Kills. The last word was printed in red and underlined, and the story made bold claims about switchblades being deadly as a revolver.

In a 2015 blog post, the Brooklyn Public Library recounted how a judge, several state lawmakers and the Brooklyn Daily Eagle newspaper waged a three-year campaign against switchblades starting in 1950 that ultimately ended with New York becoming the first state to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of the knives.

Clark and Ritter both said there were also racist undertones to banning switchblades, because it was a weapon often associated with Puerto Rican migrants in New York, like those depicted in one of the gangs from West Side Story.

In modern times, switchblade laws are often selectively enforced based on race, according to Clark, who said police officers he interviewed admitted as much.

A lot of cops said to me, If youre not doing anything you shouldnt be doing, were not going to pick on you for having a switchblade, Clark said. But is that the same for a middle-aged White guy versus an 18-year-old Black guy?

Ritter, the Knife Rights president, said racial discrimination in the enforcement of switchblade and other knife laws is a reason his organization often gets bipartisan support.

Too often we find restrictions and prohibitions that are enforced against minorities and people of color disproportionately, he said, adding that was often the case when such laws were implemented, too. There is definitely a history of knife restrictions that has nothing to do with knives and everything to do with the attitude of people in government toward certain groups of people.

Thats part of the reason why its unclear how much resistance the switchblade lawsuit could meet, especially among the public. There appears to be no local, state or national anti-knife groups such as the ones that advocate for gun control, such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown for Gun Safety.

Ritter said that in the nearly 15 years Knife Rights has been fighting to overturn knife bans, hes never run into organized opposition. His group claims to have helped repeal or block 41 knife bans in 26 states since 2010.

The switchblade lawsuit names as defendants Attorney General Rob Bonta, San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez and District Attorney Summer Stephan. A sheriffs lieutenant spokesperson and a spokesperson for the district attorney both declined to address the lawsuit, citing policies against commenting on pending litigation. A spokesperson for Bonta also declined to comment, saying his office was reviewing the complaint and will respond in court.

Bonta has already responded in a limited capacity, in opposition to the plaintiffs assertion that the switchblade lawsuit is closely related to litigation challenging the states ban on assault weapons.

The plaintiffs appear to be trying to take advantage of an obscure local court rule that allows attorneys to get related cases in front of the same judge, even when theyve been randomly assigned to different judges. The practice is meant to promote efficiency and consistency, but has led to allegations of judge shopping.

The switchblade lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Judge James Simmons, Jr., one of the districts newest judges. But the plaintiffs are trying to get it re-assigned to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who has consistently ruled to overturn California gun laws, earning him the nickname St. Benitez among Second Amendment enthusiasts.

The knife-rights advocates argue both lawsuits challenge California statutes that outlaw weapons based on specific characteristics or features, that the suits involve many of the same plaintiffs and defendants, and that they address substantially the same facts and questions of law.

Assigning the switchblade lawsuit to Benitez, who is already presiding over the assault weapon case and three other Second Amendment cases, would (save) ... judicial effort and avoid or minimize the risk of multiple, inconsistent rulings and judgments within the same District, the plaintiffs argue.

Bontas deputies quickly filed a motion opposing the related cases claim. They argued there were few similarities in the cases beyond the fact that both deal with the Second Amendment.

Plaintiffs here challenge an entirely different set of laws regulating completely different weapons, the deputy attorneys general wrote in their motion.

As of Friday, the case remained assigned to Simmons.

Its unclear exactly what arguments Bonta might make to defend the challenged switchblade statutes, but recent filings in the other Second Amendment cases being heard by Benitez perhaps offer a hint.

In those cases, Benitez ordered attorneys for the state to compile lists of historical weapons restrictions that might meet the new text, history and tradition standard established by Bruen, the recent Supreme Court case. The governments list of laws does not address switchblades such knives did not exist until later but does include several bans on bladed weapons, including dirks, daggers, Bowie knives and a long, slim dagger known as an Arkansas Toothpick.

The government could try to point to those as historical analogies in arguing why switchblades should remain banned.

Benitez is expected to rule or in some cases, re-rule on the four pending Second Amendment challenges within the next few weeks or months.

Originally posted here:
For subscribers: Bans on switchblades have been overturned ... - The San Diego Union-Tribune